RAM NATH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing revision filed under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in part and remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer after set ting aside the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 27. 11. 90 and Consolidation Officer dated 28. 4. 87 directing the Con solidation Officer to frame an additional issue relating to the sequence of deaths of the original tenure-holders and after afford ing an opportunity to the parties of leading additional evidence decide the claims on merits afresh taking, into consideration the copy of the death extract filed during the pendency of the revision as additional evidence, the petitioner has now ap proached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the said order.

(2.) THE facts, shorn of details and neces sary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. Ram Nath the petitioner had filed an objection in the proceedings under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of the land in dis pute claiming l/4th share therein. Various other persons had also filed objections. THE controversy in regard to the determination of the extent of shares raised by the parties involved ascertainment of the sequence of death of Gauri, Buchunwa and Chhoti, THE Consolidation Officer had framed two is sues. THE first issue was to the effect as to whether Raja had 1/2 share in the land in dispute and the second issue was as to what was the share of the parties in the land in dispute. THE Consolidation Officer has ob served in his judgment that parties had been given full opportunity of adducing oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their claims. It was also observed that Ram Nath had examined himself alone as a wit ness and had not produced any other oral evidence. It has also been observed that Ram Nath had filed nine documents viz C. H. form No. 23 in respect of chak No. 46 carved out in the earlier proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act the basic year Khataimi for the year 1363 F. pertain ing to Khatas No. 14,24,28 and 43 of village Pilahi, C. H. Form No. 41 in respect of plot No. 198 and others and C. H. 45 in respect of Khatas No. 5,16 and 48, extract of Khatauni 1359 F. , in respect of Khatas No. 16,21,31,3, 13,15,18 etc. , extract of Khatauni 1319 F. , Khasra Bandobast Mohall relating to vil lage Pilahi for 1318-F. THE Consolidation Officer clearly noticed in his order that apart from the aforesaid nine documents no other document has been filed by Ram Nath.

(3.) THE order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was challenged by Raja as well as Ram Nath by means of a separate revisions filed under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. During the pendency of the revision Ram Nath filed additional evidence consisting of Khatauni 1399f to 1404 R, pertaining to Khata No. 187, copy of the voter list, copy of the Khatauni 1334 R, copy of the Khatauni 1333r copy of the extract of death register maintained by Chowkidar relating to Gauri, copy of the death extract maintained by Chowkidar in respect of Luchunwa and copy of extract of death register maintained by Chowkidar in respect of Chhoti. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation observed that both the Consolidation Officers as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation had not discussed the claim of the parties in regard to the correctness of the different pedigrees set up by them and had not recorded a dear cut finding as to which pedigree was not proved, II was also ob served that the Consolidation Officer had decided both the issues together which should not have been done, THE Deputy Director of Consolidation was of the view that it should have first been decided as to which pedigree was proved and then the question of the sequence of death should have been determined so as to find out as to how the property had devolved observing that it would have been proper if the Settle ment Officer Consolidation had decided the sequence of deaths on the basis of the evidence already on the record. It was also indicated that the question in regard to the determination of share was the question of law and ought to have been decided on the basis of the pedigree and not on the basis of any compromise. It was also noticed that the transfer of the shares had not been properly taken into account while determining the extent of the shares. Being of the view that the entire evidence and materials on the, record had not been discussed properly and important issues arising in the case had not been considered, the Deputy Director of Consolidation concluded that the matter should be remitted to the Consolidation Officer requiring him to decide the case afresh after discussing the matter point wise. It was also observed that the parties should be allowed to lead evidence in respect of the copies from the death register maintained by Chowkidar which had been produced during the pendency of the revision. In the aforesaid view of the matter the Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the or ders of the appellate authority dated 27. 11. 90 and that of the Consolidation Officer dated 28-4-87 and remanded the mat ter to the Consolidation Officer with the direction to frame an additional evidence in regard to the sequence of deaths in question and providing an opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence to decide the case afresh on merits.